107
107
Dec 9, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 107
favorite 0
quote 0
one is doma, defense of marriage act. this administration won't defend it in the courts. if that gets struck down, what does that say to cases where people have been allowed to marry in the same gender. what happens if doma gets struck down by the court, 5-4, whatever. >> the ridiculously named defense of marriage act would be gone. >> what would it mean to a person married? >> that would bemean couples married in those states would be recognized by the federal government. would mean we still have a lot of work to do and depending how they rule in the prop 8 case we still need other states to move forward with the right to marry. >> an honor to have you on and elizabeth, glad to have you back in a much bigger studio now. the republican establishment at war with his crazy wing, said they lost election because i ideologues pulled mitt romney too far to the right. wrong says the right ring, we lost because mitt romney wasn't right wing enough. the winner will determine whether the gop returns to the center or becomes a more fringy party. >>> two people get in the room. the p
one is doma, defense of marriage act. this administration won't defend it in the courts. if that gets struck down, what does that say to cases where people have been allowed to marry in the same gender. what happens if doma gets struck down by the court, 5-4, whatever. >> the ridiculously named defense of marriage act would be gone. >> what would it mean to a person married? >> that would bemean couples married in those states would be recognized by the federal government....
160
160
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 160
favorite 0
quote 0
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government is meddling with the state definitions of marriage. with respect to the prop 8 case, i think again kennedy, because of these two cases i mentioned, is likely to be sympathetic but may be incremental. he may say something along the lines of one state or eight states have to flip. i don't think he'll flip all 41. >> we always appreciate your valuable insight. we hope you'll stick around for the next few months and continue to provide that as we wade through what is undoubtedly going to be a fairly complex case, as well. good saturday to you, sir. thank you for your time. >>
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government...
160
160
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 160
favorite 0
quote 0
what doma says is two things. one state does not have to recognize the marriage law, same-sex marriage law, of another state. that would be struck down and then there would have to be another test as to full faith and credit. >> if you move from california to utah and you're getting the recognized marriage in california but not in utah, but in utah living in salt lake city you'd be able to get social security benefits and all the federal stuff. >> you would -- it's not clear. >> it would depend how the court rules in that case. >> if the court reaches the question of full faith and credit, what that is, utah must recognize the marriage laws of california, then, yes -- >> but you'd still be getting your social security checks, wouldn't you? >> it's not clear -- >> let's go back to a clear case. if prop 8 -- if the decision by the ninth , if the decision to strike that down, if that is upheld, where do we stand? what does that do? is equality then the law of the land? is marriage equality the law of land? >> it woul
what doma says is two things. one state does not have to recognize the marriage law, same-sex marriage law, of another state. that would be struck down and then there would have to be another test as to full faith and credit. >> if you move from california to utah and you're getting the recognized marriage in california but not in utah, but in utah living in salt lake city you'd be able to get social security benefits and all the federal stuff. >> you would -- it's not clear....
208
208
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 208
favorite 0
quote 0
ruling in favor of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code, that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what
ruling in favor of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot...
145
145
Dec 9, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 145
favorite 0
quote 0
the supreme court is taking up a prop 8 and a doma case. does the president need to take a stronger stance on this now? >> i think he should. both on the substance and the politics. the constitution clearly states every american has equal rights under the law. that includes the right for loving committed couples to get married. it's a no brainer. on the pollices, as you said, that 53% support, it shot up ten points in two years. america is at a tipping point on this issue. you are right about the young people. they are going to be the majority of the electorate over the next two presidential cycles. they are already a voice in a n. it's all upside for the president and the democrats. >> erin, i'm going to get you to weigh in after the break on the president's legacy on this issue. >>> and the must-reads, the picks after this. citracal slow release continuously releases calcium plus d with efficient absorption in one daily dose. citracal slow release. with efficient absorption in one daily dose. is bigger than we think ... sometimelike the f
the supreme court is taking up a prop 8 and a doma case. does the president need to take a stronger stance on this now? >> i think he should. both on the substance and the politics. the constitution clearly states every american has equal rights under the law. that includes the right for loving committed couples to get married. it's a no brainer. on the pollices, as you said, that 53% support, it shot up ten points in two years. america is at a tipping point on this issue. you are right...
190
190
Dec 7, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 190
favorite 0
quote 1
so i think that doma law goes by the wayside. the second question is an equal protection question and goes specifically at the california referendum which -- >> the proposition 8. >> the proposition, proposition 8, which makes it illegal under california law to have gay marriage. they will look at that under the equal protection clause. i think it's a little bit hazardous to anticipate where the court will go on that question, and i would be reluctant to do that, but that's kind of an equal protection question. the request he is will the court be ahead of where the public is or behind the public. this is a question that eventually sooner or later, probably sooner, the public will come around to recognize and already is showing by the polls that marriage equality should be considered a fundamental constitutional right. >> professor peterson, to julian's point, despite its rulings on the president's health care law, on immigration, this court maintains a conservative tilt. is this necessarily good news for supporters of same-sex ma
so i think that doma law goes by the wayside. the second question is an equal protection question and goes specifically at the california referendum which -- >> the proposition 8. >> the proposition, proposition 8, which makes it illegal under california law to have gay marriage. they will look at that under the equal protection clause. i think it's a little bit hazardous to anticipate where the court will go on that question, and i would be reluctant to do that, but that's kind of...
188
188
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 188
favorite 0
quote 0
. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have thousands of federal benefits. the case before the supreme court involves a woman who had to pay $363,000 in estate taxes she wouldn't have had to pay just because the person she was married to was the same gender as herself. it's fairness but limbed to that one state. >> patricia, always good to see you. thanks for weighing in. >> thank you. >> the deadline for the fiscal cliff is just over three weeks away. lawmakers are still mired in part in gridlock, each side saying the other is to blame. what do their constituents think? cnbc says 21% would blame the president, 23% blame republicans, 52 blame ea
. >> the other case involves doma, defense of marriage act. what's at the heart of that question? >> not the fundamental right of same-sex marriage but whether the federal government can define marriage in a certain way, as between one man and one woman. historically that's been the job of the states to decide what marriage is, to define it. that really is the federal government stepping somewhere where it hasn't before. what they have done with that statute is say people can't have...